Preface to the Pamphlet by Voinov (A. V. Lunacharsky) on the Attitude of the Party Towards the Trade Unions[5]

Written:Written in November 1907Published:First published in 1933 inLenin Miscellany XXV.

      Published according to the manuscript.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Progress Publishers,1972,

      Moscow,Volume 13,

      pages161-168.Translated:Bernard IsaacsTranscription\Markup:R. CymbalaPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive

      (2004).You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.•README

ComradeVoinov s pamphlet on the attitude of the socialist
party of the proletariat towards the trade unions is open to a good deal of
misconstruction. There are two reasons for this. In the first place, the
author, in the ardour of his fight against a narrow and incorrect
conception of Marxism, against an unwillingness to take into consideration
the new needs of the working-class movement and take a broader and more
profound view of the matter, often ex presses himself in too general
terms. He attacks orthodoxy—true, orthodoxy in inverted commas,
i.e., pseudo-orthodoxy—or German Social-Democracy in general, when,
as a matter of fact, his criticism is aimed only at the vulgarisers
of orthodoxy, only at the opportunist wing of Social-Democracy. Secondly,
the author writes for the Russian public, but hardly takes into
consideration the various shadings in the formulation under Russian
conditions of the questions he examines. Comrade Voinov’s point of
view is very far removed from the views of the Russian syndicalists,
Mensheviks, and Socialist-Revolutionaries. The inattentive or
unconscientious reader, however, can easily cavil at one or another phrase
or idea of the writer, seeing that the latter had before his eyes chiefly
Frenchmen and Italians and did not undertake the task of
dissociating him self from all kinds of Russian muddleheads.

Asan example of the latter we would mention the Socialist-Revolutionaries. InZnamya Truda, No. 5, they declare with their usual presumption: ”The
Socialist Internationalapproved the point of view on the trade-union movement which we [!] have
always [!] maintained.” Let us take theCollected Articles,
No. 1 (1907), published byNasha Mysl. Mr. Victor Chernov takes
Kautsky to task, butis silentabout the Mannheim resolution and
Kautsky’s struggle against the opportunist neutralists!
Kautsky’s article, which the S. R. hack writer attacks, was written
on the eve of

Mannheim.[6]In Mannheim Kautsky opposed the neutralists. The Mannheim
resolution “makes a considerable breach in trade-union
neutrality” (Kautsky’s expression in an article on the Mannheim
Congress published inDie Neue Zeit[7]for October 6,1906). And now,in
1907, along comes a critic, who poses as a revolutionary and calls
Kautsky “a great dogmatist and inquisitor of Marxism”, accusing
him—quite in unison with the opportunist neutralists!—of
tendentiously belittling the role of the trade unions, of a desire to
“subordinate” them to the party, and so on. If we add to this
that the S.R.’s always stood for non-Party trade unions, and thatZnamya Truda, No. 2 for July 12, 1907 carried an editorial saying
that “party propaganda has its placeoutsidethe
union”, we shall get a full picture of the S.R.’s revolutionism.

WhenKautsky combated opportunist neutralism and further developed and deepened
the theory of Marxism, moving the trade unions leftwards, these gentlemen fell
upon him, repeating the catchwords of the opportunists and continuing on the sly
to advocate non-partisanship of the trade unions. Whenthe same Kautskymoved the trade unions still further leftwards by amending Beer’s
resolution at Stuttgart and laying stress in this resolution on the socialist
tasks of the trade unions, the gentlemen of the S. B. fraternity started
shouting: the Socialist International has endorsed our point of view!

Thequestion arises, are such methods worthy of members of the Socialist
International? Does not such criticism testify to presumption and lack of
principle?

Aspecimen of such presumption among the Social-Democrats is the former
revolutionary Plekhanov, who is deeply respected by the liberals. In a preface
to the pamphletWe And Theyhe declares with inimitable, incomparable
complacency that the Stuttgart resolution (on the tradeunions)with my amendmentdeprives the London resolution (that of the
London Congress of the R.S.D.L.P.) of its significance. Probably many readers,
upon reading this declaration of our magnificent Narcissus, will believe that
the struggle at Stuttgart was fought precisely over this amendment of
Plekhanov’s and that generally speaking this amendment had some serious
significance.

Inreality, this amendment (“unity of the economic struggle should always
be borne in mind”) had no serious significance whatever. It even had no
bearing on the essence of the questionsin disputeat Stuttgart, on the
essence of the differences of opinion in international socialism.

Asa matter of fact, Plekhanov’s raptures over “his”
amendment have a very vulgar significance—tomisleadthe
reader by drawing his attention away from thereallydisputable
questions of the trade-union movement and toconcealthe defeat of
the idea of neutralism in Stuttgart.

TheStockholm Congress of the B.S.D.L.P. (1906), at which the Mensheviks won the
day, adhered to the point of view of trade-union neutrality. The London Congress
of the R.S.D.L.P. took a different stand and proclaimed the necessity of
working towards partisanship of the unions. The Stuttgart International Congress
adopted a resolution, which “puts an end to neutrality once and for
all”, as Kautsky rightly

			    expressed it.[1]Plekhanov went into the
Commission of the Stuttgart Congress to defend neutrality, as described in
detail by Voinov. And Clara Zetkin wrote inDie Gleichheit, the
mouthpiece of the women’s labour movement of Germany, that
“Plekhanovattempted by rather unconvincing argumentsto justify
a certain limitation of this

			     principle”[2](i.e., the principle of close
alignment of the unions with the Party).

Thus,the principle of neutrality which Plekhanov advocated was a
failure. His arguments were considered “unconvincing” by the
German revolutionary Social-Democrats.And he, self-admiringly, declares: “my” amendment was adopted and the
resolution of the London Congress loses its significance....

Yes,yes, but, on the other hand, the Nozdrev

presumption[8]of a socialist respected by the liberals apparently does
not lose any of its significance.

ComradeVoinov is wrong, I believe, in saying that the German orthodox
socialists consider the idea of storming harmful and that orthodoxy “had
all but adopted the whole spirit of the new Economism”. This cannot be
said of Kautsky, and Comrade Voinov himself admits the correctness of
Kautsky’s views. While blaming the Germans for “saying too little
about the role of the trade unions as organisers of socialist production”,
Comrade Voinov mentions else where the opinion of Liebknecht senior, who
recognised this role in the most emphatic terms. Another mistake of Comrade
Voinov was to believe Plekhanov when the latter said that Bebeldeliberatelyomitted mention of the Russian revolution in his speech of
welcome, and that Bebeldid not wantto speak about Russia. These
words of Plekhanov’s were simply crude buffoonery on the part of a
socialist who is deeply respected by the liberals and should not for a moment
have been taken seriously, should not have evoked even the possibility of
believing that there was an iota of truth in them. For my part I can testify
that during Bebel’s speech, Van Kol, a representative of the socialist
Right wing who sat next to me in the Bureau, listened to Bebel specially to see
whether he would mention Russia. And as soon as Bebel had finished, Van Kol
turned to me with a look of surprise; he did not doubt (nor did a single serious
member of the Congress) that Bebel had forgotten Russiaaccidentally. The best and most experienced speakers some times make
slips. For Comrade Voinov to call this forgetfulness on the part of the veteran
Bebel “characteristic”, is, in my opinion, most unfair. It is also
profoundly unfair to speak in general about the“present-day”opportunistic Bebel. There are no grounds
for such a generalisation.

Toavoid misunderstandings, however, let me say at once that if anyone tried to
use these expressions of ComradeVoinov’s against the revolutionary German Social Democrats, this
would be seizing dishonestly oh particular words. Comrade Voinov has
abundantly proved by hiswholepamphlet that he is on the side of
the German revolutionary Marxists (like Kautsky), that he is workingtogether with themto get rid of old prejudices, opportunist
clichés, and short-sighted complacency. That is why even in
Stuttgart, I lined up with Comrade Voinov on all essentials and agree with
him now regarding the entire character of his revolutionary criticism. He
is absolutely right in saying that we must now learn from the Germans and
profit by their experience. Only ignoramuses, who have still learned
nothing from the Germans and therefore do not know the ABC, can infer from
this a “divergence” within revolutionary Social-Democracy. We
must criticise the mistakes of the German leaders fearlessly and openly if
we wish to be true to the spirit of Marx and help the Russian socialists to
be equal to the present-day tasks of the workers’ movement. Bebel was
undoubtedly mistaken at Essen as well when he defended Noske, when he
upheld the division of wars into defensive and offensive, when he attacked
themethodof struggle of the “radicals” against. Van
Kol, when he denied (with Singer) the failure and fallacy of the German
delegation’s tactics at Stuttgart. We should not conceal these
mistakes, but should use them as an example to teach the Russian
Social-Democrats how to avoid them and live up to the more rigorous
requirements of revolutionary Marxism. And let not the Russian anarchist
and syndicalist small fry, the liberals, and S.R.’s crow over our criticism
of Bebel. We shall tell these gentlemen: “Eagles sometimes fly lower
than hens, but hens can never fly as high as eagles!”

Alittle over two years ago Mr. Struve, who at that time defended the
revolution, wrote about the necessity of open revolutionary action and
maintained that the revolution must assume power—this Mr. Struve
wrote inOsvobozhdeniye,[9]No. 71 (published abroad): “In comparison with the revolutionism of
Mr. Lenin and his associates the revolutionism of the West-European
Social-Democracy ofBebel, and even of Kautsky, is opportunism”. I answered Mr. Struve at
the time: “When and where did I ever claim to have created any sort
of special trend in international Social-Democracy not identical with the
trend of Bebel and Kautsky?” (Two Tactics, p. 50 of the
Russian

			      edition).[3]

Inthe summer of 1907 in a pamphlet on the question of boycott of the Third
Duma, I had to point out that it would be basically wrong to identify Bolshevism
with boycottism or boyevism.

Now,on the question of the trade unions, equally strong emphasis
should be placed on the fact that Bolshevism applies the tactics of
revolutionary Social-Democracy in all fields of struggle, in all spheres of
activity. What distinguishes Bolshevism from Menshevism is not that the
former “repudiates” work in the trade unions or the
co-operative societies, etc., but that the formertakes a different
linein the work of propaganda, agitation, and organisation of the
working class. Today activity in the trade unions undoubtedly assumes
tremendous importance. In contrast to the neutralism of the Mensheviks we
must conduct this activity on the lines of closer alignment of the unions
with the Party, of the development of socialist consciousness and an
understanding of the revolutionary tasks of the proletariat. In Western
Europe revolutionary syndicalism in many countries was a direct and
inevitable result of opportunism, reformism, and parliamentary
cretinism. In our country, too, the first steps of “Duma
activity” increased opportunism to a tremendous extent and reduced
the Mensheviks to servility before the Cadets. Plekhanov, for example, in
his everyday political work, virtuallymergedwith the Prokopovich
and Kuskova gentry. In 1900, he denounced them for Bernsteinism, for
contemplating only the “posterior” of the Russian proletariat
(Vademecumfor the editorial staff ofRabocheye Dyelo,
Geneva, 1900). In 1906-07, the first ballot papers threw Plekhanov into the
arms of these gentlemen, who are now contemplating the
“posterior” of Russian liberalism. Syndicalism cannot help
developing on Russian soil as a reaction against this shameful conduct of
“distinguished” Social-Democrats.

ComradeVoinov, therefore, is quite correct in taking the line of
calling upon the Russian Social-Democrats to learnfromthe example
of opportunism andfromthe example of syndicalism. Revolutionary
work in the trade unions, shifting the emphasis from parliamentary trickery
to the education of the proletariat, to rallying the purely class
organisations, to the struggle outside parliament, to ability to use (and
to prepare the masses for the possibility of successfully using) the
general strike, as well as the “December forms of

struggle”,[10]in the Russian revolution—all this
comes very strongly into prominence as the task of the Bolshevik trend. And
the experience of the Russian revolution immensely facilitates this task
for us, provides a wealth of practical guidance and historical data making
it. possible to appraise in the most concrete way the new methods of
struggle, the mass strike, and the use of direct force. These methods of
struggle are least of all “new” to the Russian Bolsheviks, the
Russian proletariat. They are “new” to the opportunists, who
are doing their utmost to erase from the minds of the workers in the West
the memory of the Commune, and from the minds of the workers in Russia the
memory of December 1905. To strengthen these memories, to make a scientific
study of that great

			     experience,[4]to spread its lessons among the masses and the realisation of its
inevitable repetition on a new scale— this task of the revolutionary
Social-Democrats in Russia opens up before us prospects infinitely richer
than the one-sided “anti-opportunism” and
“anti-parliamentarism” of the syndicalists.

Againstsyndicalism, as a special trend, Comrade Voinov levels four
accusations (p. 19 onwards of his pamphlet), which show up its falsity with
striking clearness: (1) the"anarchistic looseness of the organisation”;

(2) keeping the workers keyed up instead of creating a firm
“stronghold of class organisation”;

(3) the petty-bourgeois-individualistic features of its ideal and of the
Proudhon. theory;

(4) a stupid “aversion to politics”.

Thereare here not a few points of resemblance to the old
“Economism” among the Russian Social-Democrats. Hence I am not so
optimistic as Comrade Voinov in regard to a “reconciliation” with
revolutionary Social—Democracy on the part of those Economists who have
gone over to syndicalism. I also think that Comrade Voinov’s proposals
for a “General Labour Council as a superarbiter, with the participation
in it of Socialist-Revolutionaries, are quite unpractical. This is mixing up
the “music of the future” with the organisational forms of the
present. But I am not in the least afraid of Comrade Voinov’s perspective,
namely:

“subordination of political organisations to a class social
organisation” ... “only when[I am still quoting
Comrade Voinov, stressing the important words]...all trade-unionists
will have become socialists”. The class instinct of the
proletarian masshas alreadybegun. to be manifested in Russia
with full force. This class instinct already provides tremendous guarantees
both against the petty-bourgeois woolliness of the
Socialist-Revolutionaries and against the Mensheviks’ servility to the
Cadets. We can already boldly assert that the massworkers’organisation in Russia (if it were to be created and in so far as it is for
a minute created, if only by elections, strikes, demonstrations, etc.)
issureto be closer to Bolshevism, to revolutionary
Social-Democracy.

ComradeVoinov rightly regards the “labour congress” adventure as a
“frivolous” affair. We shall work hard in the trade unions, we shall
work in all fields to spread the revolutionary theory of Marxism among the
proletariat and to build up a “stronghold” ofclassorganisation. The rest will come of itself.

[1]Vorwärts, 1907, No. 209,Beilage,
Kautsky’s report to the Leipzig workers on the Congress in
Stuttgart. SeeKalendar dlya vsekh, 1908, ZernoPublishers,
p. 173, my article on the International Socialist Congress in
Stuttgart. (See pp. 87-88 of this volume.—Ed.)  —Lenin

[2]SeeKalendar dlya vsekh, p. 173, as well as the collected
articles ofZarnitsky(St. Petersburg, 1907), which gives a
complete translation of this article fromDie Gleichheit.  —Lenin

[3]Seepresent edition, Vol. 9, p. 66.—Ed.

[4]Itis natural that the Cadets should be eagerly studying the history of
the two Dumas. It is natural that they should regard the platitudes and
betrayals of Rodichev-Kutlerov liberalism as gems of creation. It is
natural that they should falsify history by drawing a veil of silence over
their negotiations with the reaction, etc. It is unnatural for the
Social-Democrats not to eagerly study October-December 1905, if only
because each day of that period meant a hundred times more to the destinies
of all the peoples or Russia and the working class in particular than
Rodichev’s “loyal” phrases in the Duma.  —Lenin

[5]ThePreface to the Pamphlet by Voinov(A. V. Lunacharshy)
on the Attitude of the Party Towards the Trade Unionswas written by
Lenin in November 1907. Lunacharsky’s pamphlet was never published.

[6]Thisrefers to the Mannheim Congress of the German Social-Democratic
Party held September 23-29 (new style), 1906. The chief item on the agenda
was the question of the mass political strike, which the German
Social-Democrats, at their Jena Congress in 1905, recognised as the most
important method of political struggle.Mention was made in this connection of the trade unions, which rejected the
idea of a mass political strike as being anarchistic. The Mannheim Congress
did not openly condemn the opportunist position of the trade unions, but
recommended all party members to join trade-union organisations, and
trade-union members to join the S D. Party “in order to infuse the
spirit of Social-Democracy into the trade-union movement”.

[7]DieNeue Zeit—the theoretical journal of the German
Social-Democratic Party, published in Stuttgart from 1883 to 1923. Up to
October 1917 it was edited by Karl Kautsky and subsequently by Heinrich
Cunow. Some of the works of Marx and Engels were first published in its
columns, among them Marx’sCritique of the Gotha Programmeand Engels’sContribution to the Critique of the Draft
Social-Democratic Programme of 1891. Engels regularly helped the
editors with suggestions and advice and often criticised them for
departures from Marxism. Contributors included August Bebel, Wilhelm
Liebknecht, Rosa Luxemburg, Franz Mehring, Clara Zetkin, Paul Lafargue,
G. V. Plekhanov, and other leading figures in the German and international
labour movement of the late nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries. Beginning with the late nineties, after the death of Engels, theNeue Zeitmade a regular practice of publishing articles by
revisionists, notably Bern stein’s series “Problems of
Socialism”, which launched the revisionists’ campaign against
Marxism. During the First World War the journal adopted a Centrist stand,
in effect supporting the social-chauvinists.

[8]Nozdrev—a character from Gogol’sDead
Souls, typifying a bullying landlord and cheat.

[9]Osvobozhdeniye(Emancipation)—a fortnightly
journal published abroad from June 18 (July 1), 1902 to October 5 (18),
1905 under the editorship of P. Struve. It was the organ of the Russian
liberal bourgeoisie and expounded the ideas of moderate monarchist
liberalism. In 1903, theOsvobozhdeniyeLeague was formed around
the journal, taking definite shape in January 1904 and existing until
October 1905. Together with the Zemstvo constitutionalists, theOsvobozhdeniyeliberals formed. the core of the
Constitutional-Democratic Party (the Cadets), which was founded in October
1905, and became the chief party of the liberal-monarchist bourgeoisie in
Russia.

[10]Thisrefers 16 the armed uprising of the workers against the autocracy
in December 1905.